Recognition memory for words and pictures at short and long retention intervals

Abstract

In two experiments, subjects studied a long series of words and pictures for recognition. Retention intervals varied from several minutes to a few months. The complicated testing procedures in Experiment I required the use of a traditional correction for guessing to obtain estimates of subjects' memory performance. A comparable, but simpler, design in Experiment II permitted the calculation of sensitivity and bias measures. In both studies, pictorial memory was superior to verbal memory at all retention intervals tested, and this advantage was essentially constant over time. In addition, the experiments identified an increasing tendency to call verbal test items "old" over time. Bias scores in Experiment II revealed that subjects adopted a more lenient criterion in responding to words than to pictures, and increased leniency was noted for both item types over time. Explanations of the results are offered in terms of differences in initial encoding and of a loss of discrimination between experimental and extraexperimental materials.Recognition memory has been shown to be better for pictures than for words up to retention intervals of about 2 weeks (Bloom, 1971;Corsini, Jacobus, & Leonard, 1969;Davies, 1969;Jenkins, Neale, & Deno, 1967;Shepard, 1967). One purpose of the present studies was to obtain information concerning' pictorial and verbal recognition memory over a longer period of time. To this end, picture and word recognition were compared for intervals ranging from 10 min to 3 months in Experiment I and from 15 min to 2 months in Experiment II.A further purpose of Experiment I was to determine whether qualitative changes in memory occur at long retention intervals. Conceivably, changes might occur in· the direction of a more highly generalized representation of the materials (Bartlett, 1932; Carmichael, Hogan, & Walters, 1932). As probes for such changes, recognition test items in Experiment I included: (a) verbal synonyms of study items, (b) pictorial synonyms, (c) pictorial representations of study words, and (d) nouns describing study pictures, as well as repeated items and unrelated filler items.The use of the various types of test cue proved unnecessary as it turned out. The results showed that the retention curves for pictorial and verbal materials Experiment I reports the results of a dissertation submitted by the first author in 1973 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the PhD degree at the University of Colorado. The author gratefully acknowledges comments, help, and advice from Stephen J. Young and from the members of his dissertation committee: Gregory A. Kimble, Bruce R. Ekstrand, Walter Kintsch, Eugene S. Gollin, and Verne C. Keenan. This work was sponsored in part by NIMH Grant MG 19577 and by NSF Grant GB 34077 X. Requests for reprints should be sent to Robert E. Gehring, Department of Psychology, Indiana State University Evansville. 8600 University Boulevard, Evansville. Indiana 47712.were essentially the same over time regardless of the type of test cue.Experiment II replicates...

Searching for the right word: Hybrid visual and memory search for words

“…The added attribute of large visual set sizes, which is not found in the earlier memory search literature, allows us to more easily distinguish logarithmic from linear increases in reaction time as a function of memory set size. It is also clear, that Wolfe 2012’s findings are not restricted to photorealistic objects that are easier to memorize than words (Gehring, Toglia, & Kimble, 1976) and easier to find (Paivio & Begg, 1974) than words.…”

Likelihood ratio decisions in memory: Three implied regularities

“…5 In most cases, the numerical data were available for analysis. For five of the studies (Elam, 1991;Gehring, Toglia, & Kimble, 1976;Gronlund & Elam, 1994;Stretch & Wixted, 1998b;Yonelinas, 1994), proportions of responses were computed on the basis of the available ROC plots. In all cases, we used the group ROCs obtained by summing across the individual participants.…”

“…We used the ROC data from each of these two variables, evaluating the effects of list length and repetition separately. In two studies (Gehring et al, 1976;Heathcote, 2003), more than one group was included in a single experiment. We combined the results for those groups in the summary.…”

Recognition-induced forgetting is not due to category-based set size

“…First, it has been well established that memory for pictures is better than memory for words (Durso & O'Sullivan, 1983;Gehring, Toglia, & Kimble, 1976;Hockley, 2008;Juola, Taylor, & Young, 1974;Madigan, 1974;Nelson, Reed, & McEvoy, 1977;Nelson, Reed, & Walling, 1976;Paivio & Csapo, 1973;Paivio, Rogers, & Smythe, 1968;Snodgrass & Burns, 1978;Snodgrass, Volvovitz, & Walfish, 1972;Snodgrass, Wasser, Finkelstein, & Goldberg, 1974), despite considerably more of the existing research on long-term memory having been conducted using verbal stimuli (Palmer, 1999). This led Maxcey and Woodman to predict that memory for pictoral stimuli in visual long-term memory would be immune to forgetting effects shown with words (e.g., retrieval-induced forgetting) and thus unimpaired following recognition practice (see also Ciranni & Shimamura, 1999;Fan & Turk-Browne, 2013;Shaw, Bjork, & Handal, 1995;Waldhauser, Johansson, & Hanslmayr, 2012).…”